Climate Change Debate

The “standard” or generally accepted view on climate change has come to be defined by various reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or the “IPCC.”

From Wikipedia – “The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body, set up at the request of member governments. It was first established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and later endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly through Resolution 43/53. Its mission is to provide comprehensive scientific assessments of current scientific, technical and socio-economic information worldwide about the risk of climate change caused by human activity, its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences, and possible options for adapting to these consequences or mitigating the effects.”

The generally accepted scientific opinion on climate change (based off findings at the IPCC) is that the Earth’s climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.

Despite these findings, few would argue that the IPCC is an organization ensnared with varying levels of corruption and government/political interference – from multiple sides. While some critics have argued that the IPCC overstates likely global warming, others have made the opposite criticism.

Below is an excellent, thought-provoking exchange on the subject of climate change (on the heels of some new IPCC allegations as well as an interesting news story regarding Greenland’s ice melting) that puts the so-called “professionals” and pundits to shame. Regardless of your position on the subject, exchanges like below are what matter – turn the TV off, put the newspaper down, and open your mind…

“That, in turn, means that the first four IPCC reports were, in fact, unreliable. Not just “possibly flawed” or “could have been improved,” but likely to be wrong and even fraudulent. It means that all of the “endorsements” of the climate consensus made by the world’s national academies of science — which invariably refer to the reports of the IPCC as their scientific basis — were based on false or unreliable data and therefore should be disregarded or revised. It means that the EPA’s “endangerment finding” — its claim that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and threat to human health — was wrong and should be overturned.”

JULY 25, 2012

“VK”:

I like this “finding” from Heartland: “Global warming is more likely to improve rather than harm human health because rising temperatures lead to a greater reduction in winter deaths than the increase they cause in summer deaths.”

It’s an opinion, not a finding. What would Joseph Bast say about these findings?:

I just had a moment to take a look at NASA’s official press release for the Greenland ice melt map they’ve been passing around. The title says satellites see “Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt,” but then goes on to say that this is a very, very normal event.” Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. Wait, so it’s unprecendted, but it happens every 150 years? Unprecedented as far as we’ve had access to this kind of image? Doesn’t unprecedented mean unprecedented…like, it’s never happened before and is a direct, legitimate cause for everyone to freak out and cry? The earth is screaming, for sure, but I fear this is somehow just more image/numbers manipulation to get an emotional response from people who have not investigated further. Hell, you only have to go as far as the bottom of NASA’s own official press release to see their own scientists contradicting the same releases’ REALLY alarming headline. Whew, that was close, I thought 97% of Greenland was gone! Good thing I read the whole press release.

POST SCRIPT: The melting event did not melt 97% of Greenland’s ice sheet, but rather occurred OVER 97% of the surface area of the ice sheet. But most people’s brains have already processed and interpreted the words “97%”, “Greenland ice sheet”, “melted”. This looks to be to be INTENTIONALLY misleading in this way. To me, anyway, as a student of media and politics (make of that what you will.)

“VK”:

The unprecedented part is that it went from 40% of the surface melting to 97% of the surface in 4 days. Although ice core samples from Summit Glacier indicate there has been melting, there is no way to tell if this is the greatest surface area melt or not. Certainly it is the greatest surface area seen by NASA satellites.

I’ll be really clear here, I am opposed to the political “fixes” to “climate change.” I do believe humans are impacting the climate through urbanization, increased population, consumerism/waste, greed, geo-engineering and a general disregard for the planet.

I don’t believe in the Bible, the Tora or the Koran. I also don’t believe the world is flat.

I know that it is impossible to understand systems and problems when they are only examined at a macro level. “If we look at the average temperature of the earth it has hardly changed at all.” Small area analysis is essential. In recent history, there is irrefutable evidence of glaciers shrinking. Unprecedented droughts, floods and severe weather patterns. If we look at the history of the earth, Holstrom is absolutely correct. However, layer on human existence and set the parameters for sustaining human life. The window is pretty small.

Think for yourself and act accordingly.

I’m tired of getting emails that are nothing more than the party line repackaged.

I’m still waiting for the legislative analysis on the “Death Panels.”

More money is spent on the last 12 to 24 months of a person’s life who suffers from chronic/terminal illnesses than in their entire life prior. Who makes that money? Bio-medical and big pharma. The people suffer and give-up their quality of life. Insurance companies win too, their premiums from Medicaid and Medicare, that’s right, it’s still your money and mine, are “risk adjusted” so insurance companies win too. Your death panels are hospice and palliative care. Oh no, insurance companies have to pay for it.

The arguments on limiting the Clean Water Act were supported by Halliburton and all their Fracking buddies.

End the Fed!! Then what? Who controls the money supply? What’s the solution? Don’t look to the Government, their presence should be shrunk.

End the discussion on climate change and stop the “green movement.”

Let’s go back to burning our garbage, using CFCs and let industrial agriculture do their thing. Private industry knows best. There are no problems, the air quality is great! It’s good for the trees. But wait, who needs trees? We could sell off all of our national forests and parks to the highest bidder to take care of the national debt to line the pockets of the top dogs.

POST SCRIPT: I just re-read my email and noticed that one might associate religious beliefs to believing that the earth was flat. Definitely not my intention. The point I was making is that many people believe in many different things. With the Flat Earth Society, they can come up with arguments despite what we’ve all learned through experiencing the world. I’m sorry if anyone took it the wrong way.

AUGUST 2, 2012

“Rothschild”:

My point in sending out this link was that scientists disagree. And that if a scientist says something is so, does not make it so.

Scientists have become the new priests, and we as the lay people must put our “faith” in them to be connected to the GOD of “Science”. The cult of “faith-in-science” (which is a logical absurdity), is detrimental to mankind because science is not based upon faith, or speculation, or assumptions; science is based upon measurable evidence and controlled experiment.

A scientist, like any human being, is flawed and subject to the same temptations and pressures that we all are subject to, wealth, fame, sex, power etc etc. The realm of “science” is no more righteous than the realm of banking or politics.

Now we as the lay people are forced to be reactive to the claims made by the new priesthood, and there, lies the problem that has existed throughout human history.

An error that we as the reactive lay people commit is that we combine emotion with data, and make deductions based upon cultural pressure and societal influence. For instance, the lumping of the concept of climate change and environmentalism. Without a doubt, the climate is changing, but it is a mistake to make the assumption that it would not change if we did not exist.

Can we alter the climate on a micro level? Certainly. Can we alter the climate on a long term average macro level? I’m not sure.

What other larger factors out there contribute to our climate and would drastically change the climate if they were to change only a small amount? Obviously the sun does. With no sun we are a frozen rock. The ocean certainly does, as do mountain ranges and forests. Cloud cover and particulants in the atmosphere certainly do as well. There are also invisible factors such as the electromagnetic flow of the earth and the tilt, axis and spin of the earth, as well as the flow of the liquid magma the pulses beneath our feet.

Now, to what degree does the amount of carbon dioxide affect the climate? That seems to be the debate. What is hard for me to swallow is that we ignore all of the previously mentioned factors and put an emphasis upon CO2 as the climate change factor (and now methane as well). What we as the lay people do know about carbon dioxide is that it is a waste product from animals and people, and it is a breathing product for plants. We also know that it would exist in the environment with or without us. It would also increase and decrees naturally with or without us. It comes from our breath but it also comes from the fuel we burn. Naturally; it comes from volcanoes, decaying matter, bacteria, oceans and springs, and it comes from all of those factors at a much greater level than the level we exhaust from our fuels. So the question is, to what degree would the carbon dioxide emitted from the burning of fuels effect the climate? I mentioned 12 variables above, and with the exception of forests, each has a great impact upon our climate, and we have no influence upon it. Each of those variables has more of an impact upon carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere than human kind does burning fuels (obviously if the poles shifted or we had major volcanic eruptions around the world, the rate of human fuel burning would change as well because it would affect how we reacted to the change in our climate). Since this is the case, how do we measure CO2 levels over a period of time, and temperatures over a period of time and point to the smallest variable as the one with the greatest impact?

The reality that we are forced to come to terms with is that we have political forces that wish to control that small variable (human produced CO2) and reduce it. Logic would lead us to believe that the only way to drastically lower our impact upon CO2 levels would be to drastically change our life styles (I don’t mean smaller cars, I mean cave man style for most of human kind, (this lifestyle usually leads to deforestation)) or drastically change our technology (publicly that tech does not exist). Obviously we can’t sustain a human population of 6+ billion cave man style, so it would result in the starvation of billions.

The question then is, is regulating the exhaust of CO2 within the lives of humanity worth the cost of human lives? Can we even ask that question if we don’t know if our small variable has any impact at all upon the climate? Unfortunately too many scientists, politicians, and zealots are willing to say yes. This scenario reminds me of the Aztec priest class who sacrificed the lives of men, women and children upon the alters of the sun while cheered on by the cries of the political forces, and societal zealots in order to be sure that they would have favorable weather and that the sun would continue to come up.

That being said, climate and environment are different concepts. We can affect our environment (pollution, tree planting, air quality, etc). The climate can effect or environment (drought, flood, tornados, etc). Can we affect the climate? I understand that we have weather manipulation techniques, and there are geo-engineering programs in effect, and we will certainly see (and probably are seeing) alterations on a micro short term level. Can we affect the climate on a long term macro level? I do not know.

“VK”:

I agree that putting “faith” in experts is a dangerous proposition for mankind. We have seen faith in the Fed, faith in the regulators, faith in Congress and just in day to day life, faith in elected officials, doctors and in teachers to name a few. I have to say, I have no faith in mankind as a whole.

I do agree that assigning a single variable as a primary factor, CO2, is absurd. However, I don’t think one can deny that humans alter their environment to make it more inhabitable for them. Humans and beavers are the only two animals on the planet that do this.

I do not propose that we go back to living in caves, at least not as a whole. But I wouldn’t mind living here:

As far as CO2 production, I would disagree with you. Manufacturing and transportation create way more CO2 than humans exhaling. We’ve seen an increase in motor vehicles and manufacturing. In fact, these two industries are primary measures for the “health of the economy”.

I don’t see anything wrong with moving towards a more sustainable, symbiotic society. Fossil fuels are finite and there is no telling what can be accomplished in the way of sustainable energy. Did people dream up cell phones during the first generation of telephones? Did we consider smart phones when cell phones first hit the market? No, it takes deliberate and constant innovation. That level of focus is not present when the energy industry doesn’t allow for it because suppliers and carriers are one in the same and make more profits when there are limited options, no different than the cell phone industry in the US.

I personally would advocate and support this level of separation. It would require an act of Congress and regulatory oversight. For example, not letting oil companies who extract crude, refine the oil, or sell the petro products. This is a kin to invest banks being integrated with commercial banks or telecommunications providers owning the “airwaves”. It’s all a conflict of interest and a rigged system.

Rather than acknowledging and fixing these systemic issues, the powers that be create a “Catch 22” for the populous to debate that ultimately end up in their favor one way or another. Just like: CO2 is responsible for climate change so we should cap and trade. They win.

Climate change doesn’t exist or humans have nothing to do with climate change so we should do nothing. They win again.

Think about how many people only have a cell phone now. When I made the switch 14 years ago, people thought I was crazy. Service was pretty spotty but I had coverage for the most part. Think about electric cars today. Where can you get a charge? Eventually, there will be more and more charging stations and combustion engines will become obsolete. Many homes that are outfitted with solar panels get revenue by selling back to the grid. Norway is 99% sustainable energy (hydro, wind and solar). There is no way for someone to say that sustainable energy can only make up 20% of the total energy need.

Even if there were a legitimate calculation sitting behind that number, it would assume that there would be no advancements in efficiency or sustainable energy production.

As for the human contributions – concrete, steel and asphalt all retain heat. With urbanization, there is more and more surface area that is covered in these materials. Walk in a sunny patch of grass with bare feet, then walk on asphalt. Urbanization also contributes to watershed damage. Toxins travel directly to waterways without the benefit of being filtered through the ground. Deforestation contributes to erosion, landslides and also degrades watershed capabilities. Manufacturing and transportation all contribute to environmental pollutants that degrade wildlife that is essential to scrubbing the air we breathe. I am not saying we need to turn back time. To the contrary, we need to do things better, more efficiently and effectively. Rather than opening up wildlife preservations for drilling and lumber, we should be investing our resources in new technology. The cap and trade debate is all about privatizing and creating a rigged system where people lose and the power brokers win.

If we are mindful of our environment and do everything we can to care for it we can reduce the impact of human behavior which is detrimental to the environment which includes the climate.

I’m sure we could all keep going on and on but I’m not sure what the point would be.

MR:

“However, I don’t think one can deny that humans alter their environment to make it more inhabitable for them. Humans and beavers are the only two animals on the planet that do this (“VK”).”

Life has altered its environment to make it more hospitable for life. That is the holy ***spark***

Biodiversity is the only currency. Moving energy through greater or fewer layers of a food chain, using every watt and gram of fresh water to create more biodiversity. Which seems to me to mean only that life is constantly trying to sew together more beautiful things. Except our culture seems to be bad at biodiversity, and the Earth wants biodiversity.

From what??? From space dust. Am I standing in space?

More layers, more biodiversity, more competition, more efficiency, more passing forward of energy…

Look out there. Can we find other Earth’s yet? When life has taken off, it has taken off, and will until it dies like you.

“First Mate! What are these?”

“Humans sir; ugly bags of mostly water.”

(Misquoted from Star Trek)

AUGUST 3, 2012

“Rothschild”:

VK – I agree with you 99%, but I may have mistyped or you misread, but I certainly don’t suggest that breathing contributes more CO2 than fuel burning. I simplify the use of hydrocarbons and other sources of fuel as “fuel burning”, because it doesn’t matter how refined (rocket fuel) or crude (yak dung), fuel is fuel, and we burn things, for the most part, to produce energy to adapt to our environment (physical environment or social/cultural environment).

Your point about reflective heat is valid, and certainly effects our local environment (I’d rather be under a tree today than in Manhattan). But our planet for the most part is uninhabitable surface area. I’m not sure if our roads, parking lots and cities reflect enough heat to create a warming trend that could out-weigh something as simple and as out of our control as a period of solar flares and solar expansion.

I see nothing wrong with just regulation and just taxation, but the word “just” can hardly ever accompany those two other words in truth. I also would love to see a “sustainable” world, but be careful with the word sustainable, because it’s a buzz word that the elite use to describe a more controlled world with fewer people.

I believe that the technology to live better lives while producing less pollution exists, but I also believe it is suppressed by the powers that be. I’ve heard many stories that Tesla had learned to harness “free energy”, the energy that exists all around us and is produced by the electromagnetic field that the earth produces. I heard that Westinghouse raided his lab after his death and stole his journals and notes. Free energy would be detrimental to the elite control structure because it gives the lay people almost complete creative power and liberation free from the reigns of the political class and priesthood.

For millennia, the separating factors between the lay people and the elite were that the elite controlled resources, labor, wealth, transportation weapons, knowledge and god. Yet they rarely enjoyed the comforts of even the poorest of our contemporary middle class; refrigeration, air conditioning, hot water, running water, auto mobiles, insulation, etc etc.

Modern society has closed the gap.

Guns, gold and a personal access to God have transformed the world. The elite cannot be as direct in regard to their control, but they still try; gun control, gold confiscation, and arresting people for having Bible studies in their homes without a permit.

That being said, if we had free energy, we would have no purpose for the elite. I’m sure the majority of us have no desire to acquire 300 foot yachts, but we would be physically and socially rich none the less. We currently live a life of perceived freedom, but that’s only because we don’t see the borders of the plantation. If “sustainability” were to come down from on-high, just as the likes of Ted Turner, Rockefeller and the other great “philanthropists” wish, the borders of the plantation would become more apparent. Energy, rather than being semi affordable would become a tool only harnessed by ye ole 1%, possession of gold would again be illegal, and paper money (which can be invisible to some extent) would no longer exist, god would again be controlled by the priesthood, and might transition from the creator, to Gia, the mother-earth goddess, and much like in totalitarian, Islam, freedom of religion would cease because a people accountable to a creator God will not first bow to a state. Biblically, it is said that you cannot serve two masters. So our “sustainable” society would have to eliminate the conflict of servitude.

Now before I ramble too much I’ll simplify my point. I believe that the elite want to spread the gap between themselves and us. At the moment their quality of life other than being lavished with extravagance is not much better than the quality of life that we as middle class Americans enjoy. But, if they can take away the comfort of cheap fuel, cheap energy, cheap food, cheap transportation, cheap clothing, cheap housing, and easy access to knowledge and connectivity, their status of as elite will have meaning again.

I support environmental protection, but I do not support the environmental / green movement. I believe it’s a Trojan horse that targets what we love and where we are sensitive and end with terrible results if successful.

And just to be sure that no implication is made by my lack of negative comment in regard to big oil, auto, and energy and finance…they are all a bunch of greedy selfish bastards living off the backs of our labor. And labor is the key word here. I know you are well aware of the money system, but for the sake of those who are also on this chain whom I have not met. We work for dollars, dollars are a claim upon labor, when we possess a dollar it is a claim upon someone else’s labor, but was acquired first by the sweat of our own labor. If we hold onto the dollar, the value of the labor that we put into it is slowly lost. Complicated taxation, and double taxation, and permits and licenses and petty fines all siphon away the labor we’ve expended throughout the year and throughout our lives. Just think of the idea of paying income tax on what you earn, and then sales tax on what you buy…. you’ve been taxed twice before you can even enjoy the benefit of your labor. Now to push the concept further we have the idea of the tax exempt, and that is what the elite use to hide their wealth. They are not attached to the concept of “legal ownership”, because they understand that power and influence is what matters not ownership; so they cloak their wealth in trusts and non profits, while at the same time tax the hell out of us when we inherit granny’s 250 thousand dollar house. The elite fain repulsion to taxes, while quietly cheering as we demand taxes that are not indexed for inflation, that will eventually target us all as the dollar goes down, and our earnings go up to compensate…

“VK”:

“Rothschild” – That’s a fine rambling. Personally, I feel the next major battle ground is information. It will be the final stand. We’ve seen degradation in the educational system. It’s become a brainwashing machine and another form of taxation. If you question the teacher’s perspective and/or methods, you fail. Educators are encroaching on the family unit and individual sovereignties and parents are happy to turn over the controls. We have an entire generation right now that have low to no prospects for work, student loans that they will never be able to afford and the paper pushers telling them the only way is to incur more debt and acquire more letters after their name. Only to come out the other side without a single original or independent thought.

Information and communication is the ultimate currency. All else are simply means.